3 ms·

I miss the era when the chattering class didn't know anything about tech. So nice to not be the product of think-pieces and in the ire of NYT readers. The funn

I miss the era when the chattering class didn't know anything about tech. So nice to not be the product of think-pieces and in the ire of NYT readers. The funniest bit is that the previous villains -- financiers and oil barons, etc. etc. - haven't gone away. I don't understand why the high-powered critics have completely pivoted to hating on tech. Say what you will about Google, OpenAI, etc. but we're not funding mass killings in the Niger river delta or foreclosing on people's homes.

drawkward 2y ago
I, too, like gatekeeping!
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Not wanting everything to become politicized - and, beyond that, politicized in a very ressentiment-leaning direction - is not gatekeeping.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    At no point did your original post say anything about the politicization of tech; you literally were upset about the "chattering class" (definitely apolitical, unloaded term there) simply knowing about tech.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      Chattering class strongly connotes politicization that is detached from material reality, it is basically the purpose of the word. I can tell that this is not going to be a productive back-and-forth, so I'll just leave it there.
  - piva00 2y ago
    Everything with power is political. Tech is extremely powerful, and even if not directly inflicting harm it does in reality inflict harm, if not by intent then by carelessness or omission. Tech hasn't pursued wars like the oil or food industry but enabled hybrid warfare by omission, it hasn't killed people directly but has created even more leverage for elites to dehumanise processes, e.g. customer support, setting rental prices, showing ads, etc. There's no way for tech to not become politicised, it's wishful thinking, and wishing it away doesn't change the reality, the further tech embeds into our lives the more power it has, the more political it becomes.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      > Tech hasn't pursued wars like the oil or food industry but enabled hybrid warfare by omission, By making everything equivalent linguistically, we lose the language to condemn terrible and awful things. I absolutely reject the notion that anything tech has done is comparable in magnitude to the actual wars and actual mass killings funded by the oil industry. Your rejoinder is replacing some customer support roles?
      - piva00 2y ago
        > Your rejoinder is replacing some customer support roles? No, it was an e.g., it is right there in the post. > By making everything equivalent linguistically, we lose the language to condemn terrible and awful things. Completely agree, at the same time the harm created isn't inconsequential, do you mind coming to a term which we can use? And by the way, you attacked tangent points of my argument, nothing in the substance of it. Power is politics, tech has power, so it's inherently politicised. Please attack this argument, not tangents.
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        > And by the way, you attacked tangent points of my argument, nothing in the substance of it. Power is politics, tech has power, so it's inherently politicised. Please attack this argument, not tangents. That part is a relatively compelling argument and one that I am partial to. I think that politics is an overloaded term nowadays and many, quite reasonably, consider the personal to be political and power to always be political. In these cases, I again have the same worry about making everything equivalent linguistically - I fear we lose the usefulness of the word 'politics'. But acceding to your definition of politics, I would change my original comment to be: I do not like the direction in which tech is being politicized. I think there are larger-scale power arrangements that do not get nearly enough attention and I worry that the current discussion is more around 'how can tear down those who are succeeding' and less of 'how can we better share in the bounty that is being created'.
rmbyrro 2y ago
But the AIs we're developing surely are going to eradicate humankind from this Earth. Haven't you read the news that an AI agent took over administrator control over a startup CEO, founder, whatever and corrupted the machine to a halt? I heard it used some `sudo` magic spell. It could have `sudo'ed` an Iranian nuclear launch site and plunged the Earth into full scale nuclear WWIII.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I am a serious sucker for science fiction, but I find the alleged inevitability of glorified chatbots dominating humans to be quite a colorful thought experiment. That said, some part of it is true. There will be a stupid "AI" that reduces your credit score to some value. There will be no recourse and no human you can ask how the score was calculated, you have no method to correct false information. Perhaps it is just because you are ugly, verified by the ugly algorithm. Perhaps you aren't visible enough on social media, Here you are indeed slave to the machine, but the news would perhaps just be, that this is already the case anyway.
allturtles 2y ago
> I miss the pre-covid era when the chattering class didn't know anything about tech. So nice to not be the product of think-pieces and in the ire of NYT readers. The "chattering classes" in general and NYT in particular have been writing think pieces about tech for decades [0] [1] [2] [3]. So I'm not sure what you're talking about and what COVID has to do with it. [0]: About Facebook in 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/jaron-lanier-on-lack-of-transparency-in-facebook-study.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/jaron-lanier-on-l... [1]: About the risks of the Internet for children in 2009: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/personaltech/28pogue-email.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/personaltech/2... [2]: About greedy dot-coms in 1998: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/27/magazine/fast-forward-greed-dot-com.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/27/magazine/fast-forward-gre... [3]: About whether children need to learn computer literacy in 1984: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/13/opinion/false-notions-about-computers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/13/opinion/false-notions-abo...
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Agree to disagree, then. I think the direction of the trend has been pretty clear and I'm an avid reader of the news, but it is a difficult thing to quantify in the aggregate.
rakoo 2y ago
Meta has had an active part in the genocide of Rohingya, though: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... It is also responsible for a rise in hate crimes: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  I don't agree with the premise that people using your platform to post hate or incite violence makes you an 'active part' in genocide in an even remotely similar fashion to Shell actively funding the militant groups engaging in genocide. It is more akin to a paper company being blamed for the writings on it or a phone company being blamed because the orders to invade were sent over text message. > It is also responsible for a rise in hate crimes: > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 Very interesting attempt to gain causality through internet blackout, but I'm not really convinced by a study that provides no evidence that they pre-registered their analysis.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    The fact that Facebook algorithms intentionally promotes hostilities as a side effect of its mission to every increase engagement doesn’t exactly make Meta passive like a phone service. It’s even more damning for Meta when you consider just how insidious their tactics are to get people hooked on their platform. They might not be selling the guns nor pulling the triggers, but they’re not exactly innocent either.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      That is still not the fault of Facebook. It is the fault of people writing these comment and those that respond to them and want to kill other people. That they now have a common platform of communication is a fact everyone needs to adapt to. You might level the criticism against the advertising industry. This is a legislative issue. To accuse Facebook to help a genocide is just distracting from the guilt of those that attempt genocide.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
The point about the historical villains all being there still still being awful to everyone is so apt. But a couple of things. Tech defines such an overwhelming share of the market that it's an impossible to disregard giant. And the world has changed so much owing to tech. But I don't think tech has had a positive human narrative in almost a decade. The noveau riche arose as semi-gentle intermediaries originally, empowering & connecting the small, and every single play we see is to intermediate, not serve. So where is the contemporary good to report on, where is the modern earned goodwill? Instead what is emitted is double trash. It's all inscrutable/doesn't serve a clear need to boot. And it's far more owned and intermediated than ever... Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies, VR, and now AI. None showing the genuine enrichment humans could really tangle with that tech had brought us. Neutrality is not enough, only mildly bad news is not enough. We need to make things that fill needs, and that expand imagination/open horizons, in ways where we ourselves can be part of the narrative. But yes please let's also cover the genuinely detestable parts of the world as such. Let all be accountable.
surgical_fire 2y ago
Eh, I think this scrutiny, skepticism, and even disdain towards the tech industry in general is highly welcome. Long gone are the days when optimism and naivety was warranted. Those large companies abused it to become the ruthless behemoths of today.

drawkward 2y ago

I, too, like gatekeeping!

whimsicalism 2y ago
Not wanting everything to become politicized - and, beyond that, politicized in a very ressentiment-leaning direction - is not gatekeeping.
- drawkward 2y ago
  At no point did your original post say anything about the politicization of tech; you literally were upset about the "chattering class" (definitely apolitical, unloaded term there) simply knowing about tech.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    Chattering class strongly connotes politicization that is detached from material reality, it is basically the purpose of the word. I can tell that this is not going to be a productive back-and-forth, so I'll just leave it there.
- piva00 2y ago
  Everything with power is political. Tech is extremely powerful, and even if not directly inflicting harm it does in reality inflict harm, if not by intent then by carelessness or omission. Tech hasn't pursued wars like the oil or food industry but enabled hybrid warfare by omission, it hasn't killed people directly but has created even more leverage for elites to dehumanise processes, e.g. customer support, setting rental prices, showing ads, etc. There's no way for tech to not become politicised, it's wishful thinking, and wishing it away doesn't change the reality, the further tech embeds into our lives the more power it has, the more political it becomes.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    > Tech hasn't pursued wars like the oil or food industry but enabled hybrid warfare by omission, By making everything equivalent linguistically, we lose the language to condemn terrible and awful things. I absolutely reject the notion that anything tech has done is comparable in magnitude to the actual wars and actual mass killings funded by the oil industry. Your rejoinder is replacing some customer support roles?
    - piva00 2y ago
      > Your rejoinder is replacing some customer support roles? No, it was an e.g., it is right there in the post. > By making everything equivalent linguistically, we lose the language to condemn terrible and awful things. Completely agree, at the same time the harm created isn't inconsequential, do you mind coming to a term which we can use? And by the way, you attacked tangent points of my argument, nothing in the substance of it. Power is politics, tech has power, so it's inherently politicised. Please attack this argument, not tangents.
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        > And by the way, you attacked tangent points of my argument, nothing in the substance of it. Power is politics, tech has power, so it's inherently politicised. Please attack this argument, not tangents. That part is a relatively compelling argument and one that I am partial to. I think that politics is an overloaded term nowadays and many, quite reasonably, consider the personal to be political and power to always be political. In these cases, I again have the same worry about making everything equivalent linguistically - I fear we lose the usefulness of the word 'politics'. But acceding to your definition of politics, I would change my original comment to be: I do not like the direction in which tech is being politicized. I think there are larger-scale power arrangements that do not get nearly enough attention and I worry that the current discussion is more around 'how can tear down those who are succeeding' and less of 'how can we better share in the bounty that is being created'.

rmbyrro 2y ago

But the AIs we're developing surely are going to eradicate humankind from this Earth. Haven't you read the news that an AI agent took over administrator control over a startup CEO, founder, whatever and corrupted the machine to a halt? I heard it used some `sudo` magic spell. It could have `sudo'ed` an Iranian nuclear launch site and plunged the Earth into full scale nuclear WWIII.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
I am a serious sucker for science fiction, but I find the alleged inevitability of glorified chatbots dominating humans to be quite a colorful thought experiment. That said, some part of it is true. There will be a stupid "AI" that reduces your credit score to some value. There will be no recourse and no human you can ask how the score was calculated, you have no method to correct false information. Perhaps it is just because you are ugly, verified by the ugly algorithm. Perhaps you aren't visible enough on social media, Here you are indeed slave to the machine, but the news would perhaps just be, that this is already the case anyway.

allturtles 2y ago

> I miss the pre-covid era when the chattering class didn't know anything about tech. So nice to not be the product of think-pieces and in the ire of NYT readers. The "chattering classes" in general and NYT in particular have been writing think pieces about tech for decades [0] [1] [2] [3]. So I'm not sure what you're talking about and what COVID has to do with it. [0]: About Facebook in 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/jaron-lanier-on-lack-of-transparency-in-facebook-study.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/jaron-lanier-on-l... [1]: About the risks of the Internet for children in 2009: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/personaltech/28pogue-email.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/personaltech/2... [2]: About greedy dot-coms in 1998: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/27/magazine/fast-forward-greed-dot-com.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/27/magazine/fast-forward-gre... [3]: About whether children need to learn computer literacy in 1984: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/13/opinion/false-notions-about-computers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/13/opinion/false-notions-abo...

whimsicalism 2y ago
Agree to disagree, then. I think the direction of the trend has been pretty clear and I'm an avid reader of the news, but it is a difficult thing to quantify in the aggregate.

rakoo 2y ago

Meta has had an active part in the genocide of Rohingya, though: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... It is also responsible for a rise in hate crimes: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972

whimsicalism 2y ago
I don't agree with the premise that people using your platform to post hate or incite violence makes you an 'active part' in genocide in an even remotely similar fashion to Shell actively funding the militant groups engaging in genocide. It is more akin to a paper company being blamed for the writings on it or a phone company being blamed because the orders to invade were sent over text message. > It is also responsible for a rise in hate crimes: > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972 Very interesting attempt to gain causality through internet blackout, but I'm not really convinced by a study that provides no evidence that they pre-registered their analysis.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  The fact that Facebook algorithms intentionally promotes hostilities as a side effect of its mission to every increase engagement doesn’t exactly make Meta passive like a phone service. It’s even more damning for Meta when you consider just how insidious their tactics are to get people hooked on their platform. They might not be selling the guns nor pulling the triggers, but they’re not exactly innocent either.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    That is still not the fault of Facebook. It is the fault of people writing these comment and those that respond to them and want to kill other people. That they now have a common platform of communication is a fact everyone needs to adapt to. You might level the criticism against the advertising industry. This is a legislative issue. To accuse Facebook to help a genocide is just distracting from the guilt of those that attempt genocide.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

The point about the historical villains all being there still still being awful to everyone is so apt. But a couple of things. Tech defines such an overwhelming share of the market that it's an impossible to disregard giant. And the world has changed so much owing to tech. But I don't think tech has had a positive human narrative in almost a decade. The noveau riche arose as semi-gentle intermediaries originally, empowering & connecting the small, and every single play we see is to intermediate, not serve. So where is the contemporary good to report on, where is the modern earned goodwill? Instead what is emitted is double trash. It's all inscrutable/doesn't serve a clear need to boot. And it's far more owned and intermediated than ever... Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies, VR, and now AI. None showing the genuine enrichment humans could really tangle with that tech had brought us. Neutrality is not enough, only mildly bad news is not enough. We need to make things that fill needs, and that expand imagination/open horizons, in ways where we ourselves can be part of the narrative. But yes please let's also cover the genuinely detestable parts of the world as such. Let all be accountable.

surgical_fire 2y ago

Eh, I think this scrutiny, skepticism, and even disdain towards the tech industry in general is highly welcome. Long gone are the days when optimism and naivety was warranted. Those large companies abused it to become the ruthless behemoths of today.